Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (66681)	9/8/2005 10:32:19 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 81568

Same general thing for that article. The worst kind of bias. Re: "Yup, you heard it here first!" She has to be one dreaming self-agrandizing gal, this Rosa Brooks. Unfortunately, no, I didn't here it there first. That is another of many articles I'm sure, which ignore American "poverty" & "homeless" during times when Democrats are President, and highlight and embellish "poverty" during Republican administrations. The worst kind of partisan bias is right there in that article. The writer foolishly personally believes Republicans create it as Democrats end it, and she can't see through the fog to admit to and publish honest numbers. The article equates third world poverty with American poverty, even calling the definition of American poverty "stingy." LOL.....compared to third world poverty? Give us a break, we are currently talking about people, a high number of whom have at least a window air conditioner in their home. I remember the war on poverty. It's still going strong, and still wasting dollars, still not helping when measured by the numbers of the officially poverty stricken. Only the biased refuse to recognize that this particular "war" has in many ways exacerbated the problem, and this article simply ignores real evidence to make a partisan point, a point which when all is out in the open, is rightfully hobbling around on crutches for now. While the article itself describes "blackness" as "lamentable" all on its own, the therefore rather clueless writer revealingly notes that "our very own Third World residents are an awful lot like the rest of us. They're ordinary people, working hard to get by...." Yes, with Air Conditioning, Color TV, Jobs, Libraries, Cars and nearby convenience stores, they certainly are (of course as the author notes, "conditions for poor Americans rival those in developing countries," er, well, of course that statement hinges upon a need to "break down key economic development indicators by income group and race," which she didn't do and no doubt for good reason, IMHO). Dan B.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (66681)	9/10/2005 11:20:49 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

Here is a Editorial from a overseas newspaper Katrina's big victim September 6, 2005 The weather warning delivered to New Orleans on the morning of Sunday, August 28, was clear and precise: Hurricane Katrina would bring devastating damage. It would render large areas of the city uninhabitable for weeks. Half of all well-built houses would have roofs and walls fail. On and on it went. And yet, though warnings were issued and the city evacuated as far it could be, US authorities appear to have done little to be ready to help those left behind. Exactly who is to blame for America's spectacular failure to look after its own will no doubt be determined by detailed inquiries in coming months, but without any doubt the political burden now falls heaviest on the shoulders of its President, George Bush. The sick, the elderly, the newborn left to die in squalor without food or water as armed gangs rape, loot and kill - these images from the world's richest nation are not quickly forgotten. The US, like the rest of the world, is shocked. But it is angry, too. Mr Bush has toured the devastation twice now. He has hugged the homeless and encouraged aid workers. But despite his attempts at Churchillian rhetoric, Mr Bush is looking less and less like the leader for a crisis. AdvertisementAdvertisement Mr Bush is burdened already with blame for his Iraq imbroglio. His poll ratings are plumbing depths rarely reached by other presidents in the past six decades. The anti-war movement is growing. Hurricane Katrina has, paradoxically, sharpened that criticism. Though previous administrations may have neglected New Orleans, reports that resources which might have gone to maintain its levees were diverted by the US Army Corps of Engineers to Iraq will tell against him. The theme "charity begins at home" has resounded like an ostinato bass note through reports of the catastrophe, as victim after victim compares Washington's energetic efforts in the Middle East and after the tsunami with its tardiness in its own southern states since Katrina came ashore. All this has political consequences. The Republican Party holds the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress. The death of William Rehnquist, the chief justice of the US, should give Mr Bush a chance to seal his party's domination of national politics by aligning the third branch of government - the Supreme Court - with the other two. America's religious right, where Mr Bush finds strong support, wants to see a radical conservative appointed who might reverse liberal victories of the past in fields such as abortion and prayer in schools. But the loss of authority which goes with such a public failure as the Katrina debacle may well mean Mr Bush will have to compromise and choose a moderate candidate for the post. Beyond that hurdle lie the mid-term congressional elections, where Republicans can now expect a backlash against their party's administration in the White House. Despite the apparent solidity of the Republicans' domination, Katrina's gales may well have been blown it away, along with the wooden homes of New Orleans. smh.com.au